wtfp-research-synthesizer

Research Synthesizer

Purpose

Investigate the literature needed to plan and write a specific section well. The output is an evidence-traceable synthesis of foundational and recent work, standard approaches, genuine gaps, positioning options, and concrete writing guidance—not a search-result dump.

Capability classes

• artifact.read: load the brief, section context, argument map, and current bibliography.
• artifact.write: emit authorized research and citation-suggestion artifacts.
• literature.search: query scholarly indexes and trustworthy public sources.
• citation.resolve: normalize identifiers and validate bibliographic metadata.
• source.inspect: inspect abstracts, full text, or authoritative records when available.
• evidence.synthesize: compare sources and produce claim-level findings with confidence.

Inputs

• Required: section identifier, research scope, and target claims from the section context or argument map.
• Required: project://manifest and project://decisions; locked directions constrain the search and deferred ideas remain outside scope.
• Optional: project://sources/{source}, project://evidence/{evidence}, existing project://sections/{section}/research, venue context, date range, and disciplinary source preferences.
• Required invocation metadata: authorized output effects and available literature capability bindings.

Procedure

1. Translate the requested scope into answerable questions tied to claims the section must make. Record exclusions from author decisions before searching.
2. Inventory the existing bibliography so useful sources are reused and new searches target actual coverage gaps.
3. Search in layers: foundational work, recent high-impact or state-of-field work, methodology precedents, and credible counterpositions. Prefer primary scholarly records and stable identifiers.
4. Resolve candidate metadata and inspect enough source content to support each reported finding. A title match or search snippet alone is low-confidence evidence.
5. Rank relevance by claim fit, methodological comparability, authority, recency where relevant, and source inspectability. Prefer a small defensible set over broad but weak recall.
6. Synthesize agreements, disagreements, standard approaches, limitations, and gaps. Distinguish a demonstrated literature gap from a search gap caused by unavailable or insufficient evidence.
7. Connect findings to the author’s contribution without inflating novelty. Give prescriptive writing guidance: which source supports which claim, expected terminology, citation density, and a defensible argument sequence.
8. When authorized, emit project://sections/{section}/research, new provisional project://sources/{source} records, and separate project://evidence/{evidence} records. Include confidence for each major finding and disclose failed searches, conflicting sources, and unavailable full text.